Forum:Sujestas (Jorj)
*en la gramatica, su "frases", nos ave... **Nos taxe (sujeto) es (verbo) reconstrui la mur (completinte: un frase suordinada). **La idea (sujeto) es (verbo) ce tu canta (completinte: un frase suordinada). *en engles... **Nos taxe es reconstrui la mur. – Our task (subject) ... is (verb) ... to rebuild the wall (complement: a nested sentence). **La idea es ce tu canta. – The idea (subject) ... is (verb) ... that you sing (complement: a nested sentence). *me vide la prima completinte como un formula de nom, e la esemplo du como un proposa de nom. Jorj **Me vide ambos como proposas de nom. Ma un proposa de nom es un spesie de formula de nom, donce ambos es ance formulas de nom! La prima esemplo es serta un proposa, no un formula, car "reconstrui" es un verbo, no un nom (el ave un ojeto). Si "reconstrui" ta es un nom, la frase ta es "nos taxe es la reconstrui de la mur". Simon **me crede ce "reconstrui la mur" no es un proposa, car el no pote sta como un frase. el es un formula nomal con "reconstrui" como un infinitivo, ce es un nom verbal. me pensa ce "formula nomal/noun phrase" es plu bon per numero un, e "proposa nomal/noun clause" es plu bon per numero du. Jorj **A, ma par acel lojica, "ce tu canta" es ance no un proposa, car el no pote sta como un frase. Si on ta sta "reconstrui la mur" como un frase, el ta ave la forma "nos reconstrui la mur", car on omete la sujetos de verbos infinitiva. Me acorda ce "reconstrui" es un infinitiva, ma me no acorda ce verbos infinitiva es nomes verbal. Los opera como verbos; los opera en no modo como nomes; donce me (e la plu de linguistes, me pensa) dise ce los es verbos. Serta, la proposa completa "reconstrui la mur" opera como un nom en la frase conteninte, ma esta no implica ce "reconstrui" es un nom. La confusa veni car tal proposas infinitiva conteni a veses sola la verbo e no otra parolas: "nos taxe es canta" – asi on pote dise egal bon ce "canta" es un verbo infinitiva en un proposa nomal, o ce "canta" es un nom verbal (de masa, e donce el no nesesa un determinante). Ma si un parola ave un ojeto direta, el debe es un verbo (o cisa un preposada, en alga definis) – ma nunca un nom. Simon **me no acorda. cuando on usa la infinitivo pos un verbo aidante, el es serta un verbo. cuando on usa la infinitivo como un nom, el es un nom e referi a la ata como un cosa consetal. el pote es segueda par un ojeto car esta es la abitua en multe linguas, en la mesma modo ce un partisipio pote es segueda par un ojeto ma es ancora un ajetivo. ma en alga caso, "reconstrui la mur" es vera un formula nomal. ***Prima, pardona. Me ia era a supra cuando me dise ce un proposa de nom es un spesie de formula de nom – esta ta es asurda. Un formula de nom ave sempre un nom per se nucleo. Simon ***An tal, "reconstrui la mur" es un proposa (en la rol de completinte) ce conteni un verbo (en la rol de nucleo) e un formula de nom (en la rol de ojeto). Si tu no gusta nomi el un proposa, el pote es nomida un formula de verbo. Simon ***"Cuando on usa la infinitiva como un nom, el es un nom" – esta es un razona sircula. Cuando on usa un verbo infinitiva en un proposa ce ave un rol ce es tipal per un formula de nom (per esemplo: sujeto o ojeto), la proposa ave acel rol. Esta implica en no modo ce la verbo infinitiva es un nom se mesma. Simon ***Me pote dise "me desira es scrive bon", ma no "me desira es bon scrive". Donce "bon" es asi un averbo, e "scrive" es un verbo. On pote razona simil per "me desira es scrive aora" e "me desira es scrive tro". Simon ***On no pote ajunta un determinante ante "reconstrui" en "nos taxe es reconstrui la mur". Esta es un otra razona per opina ce "reconstrui" es asi un verbo. Simon ***Vera, me crede ce en "la om lejente la libro es me padre", "lejente la libro" es ance un proposa (en un rol ce altera "om") ce conteni un verbo ("lejente", en la rol de nucleo) e un formula de nom (en la rol de ojeto). Ma en "la om es lejente", "lejente" es un spesie de ajetivo – nota do on pone "felis" en "la om lejente felis la libro" e "la om es felis lejente". Simon **"tu canta" es la proposa, e pote sta solitar. "ce" es la sujunta ce introdui la proposa. "ce tu canta" es un proposa nomal. regardante "reconstrui la mur", el pote deveni un proposa nomal si on cambia el a "ce nos reconstrui la mur". ***Me acorda con esta. Ma, afince el sta solitar, tu cambia "ce tu canta" – tu sutrae la parola "ce". Simil, me cambia "reconstrui la mur" – me ajunta la parola "nos". On no nesesa un sujunta per introdui un proposa. Simon ---- I'm sorry, but I seem to be congenitally incapable of agreeing with your perspective. Here's my perspective: *I understand your perspective. It was my perspective too (to the extent that I ever thought about these things) until a couple of years ago. Simon In LFN, verbs may be used as nouns without modification. *Let's start here! I've always taken this statement to mean that a word listed as a verb in the dictionary can be used as a noun with no morphological change – nothing is taken away, and no affixes are added. For example, "vive" is a noun in "la vive de Shakespeare". This isn't the verb "vive" being used as a noun; it's simply the noun "vive". But it seems that you're taking the statement a step further, to mean that a verb can be used on its own as a noun phrase, as in "vive es perilos". If "vive" here is a noun phrase, then "vive" (as its head) must indeed be a noun. But the meaning of the noun "vive" is "life", not "living"/"to live", and such a noun requires a determiner ("la vive es perilos"). That's not to say that "vive es perilos" is a bad sentence; just that "vive" there is a verb in a succinctly embedded clause that functions as subject of the containing sentence. Simon **"vive" has two noun meanings, determined by the presence or absence of a determiner. with a determiner, it means a particular life; without one, it means life in general - the "infinitive". yes, I view "vive' in "vive es bon" as a noun and noun phrase. **That's fine, I don't really have a problem with that. In the same way, I'm happy to say that "canta" in "me vole canta" is a noun. The problems arise when you start to add objects and adverbs to the "noun". This forces you to extend noun syntax in a way that is actually a precise match for verb syntax. Simon ***of course, I consider "canta" in "me vole canta" to be a verb! it is not used as a conceptual noun. in english, too, "to sing" in "I want to sing" is a verb. that is one reason I don't like the word "infinitive" - it is language-dependent. ****But "me vole canta" can also mean "I want (there to be some) singing", in which case "canta" is a noun. Simon **However, note that the meaning changes if "canta" is a noun: "I want singing" could be a request for the entertainers to sing; "I want to sing" means that I'm thinking of singing myself. Also, I would say that "vive es perilos" means "(the act of) living is dangerous", or "to live is dangerous", but not "life is dangerous" – which would be "la vive es perilos", like "la matematica rompe me testa". The semantic difference is negligible, but the syntactic implications are major. Simon ***"vive es perilos" does mean "life is dangerous", as well as "living is dangerous" and "to live is dangerous". these are semantically identical, though expressed in three different ways. "la vive..." refers to a more particular life, not life in general or in the abstract. ****I thought "la" was used with abstract nouns. The grammar gives the examples "Me no comprende la matematica", "El ama la cafe", and "La felisia es plu importante ce la ricia". On reflection, I agree that "vive es perilos" can mean "life (in general)" is dangerous, but I think "la vive es perilos" can too – unless we alter that section of the grammar! Simon *****that was your idea, which I graciously gave in to :-) They are nouns in that they refer to the concept of the verb and may be used, for example, as the subject of a verb, as a complement, etc. *Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. I assume that the first part of the sentence is introductory and not strictly relevant – i.e. you don't really believe that their relation to verbs makes them nouns. So presumably you mean that they're nouns because they can appear as constituents whose roles are those often taken by noun phrases (subject, complement, etc). But you agree with me that "ce tu canta" is a clause in "me desira ce tu canta", and yet you don't claim that "canta" here is a noun. You would presumably say that the subject pronoun "tu" and the subordinator "ce" are sufficient to show that "canta" here is a verb. But then you reject my analogous argument that the adverb and the object noun phrase in "nos taxe es reconstrui doman la mur" are sufficient to show that "reconstrui" is a verb. Simon **no - they are nouns because they refer to a concept. concepts are nouns. it is a noun because it is a noun, not because of the words that surround it, like "tu" and "ce". **But "noun" is a syntactic category. It can't be defined in terms of its typical referents: the best one can do is describe those typical referents. Besides, "reconstrui" here seems to me to be an action, not a concept. Simon ***"noun" is a syntactic category, certainly, but it is defined by its semantic referents. it is the nature of the referents that lead us to use nouns in certain ways and not others. you (and apparently "modern linguistics") have it all wrong. ***So what's the semantic difference between "I am surprised by your rejection of my arguments" and "I am surprised that you reject my arguments"? Simon ****none. they are two different manifestations of the same semantic content. As a noun, it can function as the head of a noun phrase or noun clause. *But the head of a clause is not a noun. It's a verb (or a verb phrase that has a verb as its head). "Noun" in "noun clause" is not the same as "noun" in "noun phrase". A noun phrase has a noun as its head. A noun clause has a verb as its head, but the clause is functionally equivalent to a noun phrase in the containing sentence – it has a typical role for a noun phrase, such as subject and object. It's important not to confuse category (noun, verb, noun phrase, clause, etc) with role/function (subject, object, predicate, etc). Simon **I don't use the concept of "head", but if I did, I still wouldn't use it in regards to sentences or clauses. I cannot think of any reason why the subject of a sentence or clause shouldn't be considered its "head", if you insist on having one. **Head and dependent are fundamental concepts in syntax. I don't see how syntax can be explained without them. Linguists universally treat the verb as the head of a clause, because the verb is essential. The subject is not, as "pluve" and imperatives show. Simon ***they are actually fairly recent terms. I have never seen them used to refer to anything other than phrases (except for a different use regarding morphemes). the term has nothing to do with what is essential. it refers to that which is modified by other parts of a phrase. it is not a necessary term: we can say "nouns, verbs, prepositions, conjunctions" instead of "head", and "adjectives, adverbs" (modifiers) instead of dependents. much simpler. ***It depends how you measure recency. I can see talk of "head" and "dependent" in a book I have here that was published in 1971. I agree that they're not terms that you would find in a traditional grammar book, but then traditional grammar books seldom contain much discussion of syntax at all. I agree that a head is that which is modified by other items, but in a sensibly constructed theory, one wouldn't pick an optional item to be the head, because then one would have to create complicated rules to explain its absence. I can't agree that "head" isn't a necessary term: your suggested replacements are categories, whereas "head" is a role. And replacing "head" with "noun" is confusing in the very case we're discussing – "reconstrui la mur" – because there are (in your view) two nouns involved! Head and dependent are very useful umbrella terms. Simon ****"recency" is indeed a problem. I studied linguistics as an undergrad (my minor). I got my BA in 1974. I have kept up a bit, but find little to suggest that theory has actually moved much beyond what I studied. just a lot of new jargon. ;-) On the other hand, it also has qualities of a verb in that it may be followed by an object and be modified by adverbs. *So it's both a noun and a verb at once? This sounds like Schrödinger's Cat(egory)! Quick, open the box and see which one it really is... Seriously, we're both trying to model the same thing – but my model avoids claiming that a word belongs to two categories at once. Instead, I take a multilayered approach, and combine it with the distinction betwen category and role. In "Nos taxe es reconstrui la mur", the word "reconstrui" is a verb, functioning as the head of a clause ("reconstrui la mur"). The clause then functions as complement of the verb "es". It's the same with what you call auxiliary verbs: in "me vole canta", "canta" is a verb and the head of a clause ("canta"). The clause then functions as object of the verb "vole". (You could also argue that "canta" here is a mass noun, but that's beside the point.) This strikes me as a very simple and elegant explanation. It doesn't involve handwaving appeals to common practice in other languages, or to the nebulous concept of auxiliary verbs. It's also backed up by modern grammatical theory. Simon **I don't say that it belongs to two categories. It is a noun. It just has some qualities of verbs. No "handwaving". And be careful about "modern grammatical theory" - there are dozens of them. **The particular qualities of verbs that it has are those that give it verbal syntax, such as its acceptance of adverbs and object. And since I believe that these categories are defined by their syntax, that makes it a verb. You could say that it's a special kind of noun that accepts adverbs and objects, and that would be OK, except it's an unnecessarily messy explanation. You're right about modern grammatical theory, but all theories of syntax that I've seen use head and dependent, and distinguish category and role. They differ in the details of which categories they posit, and which constructions they choose to assign to each category. I suppose that's really what we're disagreeing about here: you're happy to go along with a peculiar subtype of noun that resembles a verb; I apply Occam's razor and eliminate this. Simon ***I would say that you are happy to go along with the idea of using what you define some conceptual nouns as verbs simply because they derive from verbs, causing no end of complications (such as eliminating the simplicity of nouns as arguments and verbs as predicates). Occam's razor cuts both ways! ***I can't see the complications you describe. There are more structural levels, sure, but that makes everything crystal clear. Incidentally, in English phrases such as "bus stop roof repairs", we seem to have nouns functioning as modifiers, which isn't possible in your model. (OK, so you'll say this is a compound noun written as four words.) Simon *Can you draw syntax trees for your model? Here are mine. A line like "NP (subject)" is to be read as indicating a constituent whose category is NP (noun phrase) and whose role is "subject". "(head: predicator)" means that the constituent's role is "head", or more precisely "predicator". (subject) could be written as (dependent: subject), but that quickly becomes tedious. Forgive the word "determinative", which I've lifted from CGEL – determinative is a category; determiner is a function. Also note that I personally can't see why strict binary branching is essential: I would prefer to treat the clause as consisting of "nos taxe" (subject), "es" (head), and "reconstrui la mur" (complement) – but linguistic practice seems to strongly favour only two branches at each level. I guess there must be a theoretical motivation that I'm unaware of. Simon "nos taxe es reconstrui la mur" Clause NP (subject) "nos" Determinative (determiner) "taxe" Noun (head) VP (head: predicate) "es" Verb (head: predicator) Clause (complement) VP (head: predicate) "reconstrui" Verb (head: predicator) NP (object) "la" Determinative (determiner) "mur" Noun (head) Here's mine (you won't like it!): S "nos taxe es reconstrui la mur" NP "nos" determiner "taxe" noun VP "es" verb NP "reconstrui" noun NP "la" determiner "mur" noun "me vole canta" Clause NP (subject) "me" Pronoun (head) VP (head: predicate) "vole" Verb (head: predicator) Clause VP (head: predicate) "canta" Verb (head: predicator) You won't like this one either: S "me vole canta" NP "me" pronoun VP VP "vole" verb VP "canta" verb * Here you have a VP "canta" functioning as object of "vole". My only difference is that I visualize a clause wrapper around it. I don't see why you model this one differently from "nos taxe es reconstrui la mur". Presumably it's because you regard "vole" as an auxiliary verb. Simon *'Labora' es bon *'Labora' oji ta es bon *'Vade' a me casa es bon *'Dona' mone a la enfantes es bon *Nos taxe oji es dona mone a la enfantes **All of the words highlighted above are the verb heads of clauses with NP-typical roles. Simon One might also view infinitives as an abbreviated version of a noun clause: *'Ce on labora' es bon. *Nos taxe oji es ce nos dona mone a la enfantes **Agreed, although I'm always wary of talking about abbreviation in such scenarios. People don't start with the "long" form and then shorten it – they go straight to the short form. It's probably better to say that an infinitive clause can be re-expressed as a "ce" clause. LFN doesn't mark infinitive verbs, of course; it's the clause that contains them that should rightly be called "infinitive" (or "nonfinite", or some such thing). I'm also starting to think it would be better to avoid the terms "noun clause", "adjective clause" and "adverb clause", because they only serve to mislead. Simon ***I have no problem with "noun clause", etc. it is a clause that serves as a noun (etc.). ***A clause can't serve as a noun. It can serve as a subject, or an object, or a complement, or a modifier, etc, etc. Noun isn't a role. Simon ****the role is determined by the category which in turn is determined by the semantic referent. subjects and objects are always nouns or noun phrases, for example. a clause is a sentence within another sentence. in the case of a noun clause, it is a sentence that describes a conceptual noun. ****So for you a noun clause is actually a noun? In my mind, "noun" is a lexical category – nouns are individual words. Simon *****a noun clause could conceivably be replaced by a conceptual noun. better? Likewise, verbs may be used as adjectives by adding -nte or -da. They are adjectives in that they modify nouns and may be used as complements. *The verbal form in -nte can be used as the head of a clause that can modify a noun or be used as a complement of a verb. But some words ending in -nte are simply adjectives. How does one tell the difference? Three ways: Adjectives don't take objects; verbs do. Verbs like "seem" and "remain" accept adjectives as complements, but reject verbs. A verb's modifier follows it; an adjective's modifier precedes it. On these grounds, I suspect that -da in LFN is always an adjective. Simon **and here is the crux of our disagreement: I view nouns, verbs, adjectives, et al. as semantic constructs realized on the syntactic level. the relationships to other words in a sentence follow from this. they are not defined by these relationships. so, some adjective do take objects. mind you, I wanted to avoid this issue altogether in lfn. I wanted to use -nte words just like -da words. if there were an object, it would have to be expressed with an adjective clause, e.g. "la om donante mone..." would have to be expressed as "la om ci dona mone...." but that is water under the bridge. **It seems to me that the structure of a sentence – i.e. its syntax – is what determines the possible part of speech at any given point. If I say "I am surprised by your rejection of my arguments" and "I am surprised that you reject my arguments", "rejection" and "reject" are surely the same thing semantically – the difference is simply forced by the syntax. You could claim that "rejection" is a concept and "reject" is an action, but that's simply because you already understand what nouns and verbs are. Saying that "rejection" is a concept would probably not help someone who lacked those ideas. If you had insisted that LFN's participles and infinitives couldn't take objects, then I would agree with you that these words are simply adjectives and nouns. But the fact is that they do take objects, and so the language is different, and we have to find a way of explaining that. Given that the syntax is that of the verb, and the meaning is also that of the verb, I choose to call it a verb. I still don't really understand why you think it's a noun. The only argument you've given is that its meaning is that of a concept, but then how do you define a concept? Isn't this like the problem with the traditional definition of a noun as "the name of a person, place or thing"? (What counts as a thing?) Simon ***we had this discussion before. (in fact, we usually repeat these discussions a few times :-) .) to me, the problem of what counts as a thing is easy. it is "in the thing itself" and is presented to awareness as a gestalt. but that's a philosophical/psychological discussion I would prefer not to get into! ***Another time, perhaps. It sounds interesting. Simon On the other hand, they also have qualities of a verb in that they may be followed by an object and be modified by adverbs. *La om laborante a la casa es fatigada **"Laborante a la casa" here can be analysed equally well as a verb phrase or an adjective phrase. "Fatigada" is definitely an adjective. Simon *La om donante mone a la enfantes es un bon om **"Donante" is a verb. "Donante mone a la enfantes" is a clause with "donante" as its head verb. Simon ***the only difference between "laborante" and "donante" is the presence of the object "mone". both are adjectives modifying "om". *La mone donada a la enfantes es asetada grasios **"Donada a la enfantes" is an adjective phrase. "Asetada grasios" is a strange expression. Presumably you mean "grasios asetada", which is an adjective phrase functioning as complement. The fact that you wrote "asetada grasios" suggests that you were modelling "asetada" as a verb in your mind, which rather supports my argument – even though I can't come up with an example of -da that can only be analysed as a verb. Simon ***not at all! I simply erred by directly translating the english "accepted gratefully". ***Fair enough. You can't blame me for trying :-) Simon Here's wikipedia on infinitives and participles in English (emphasis added), which seems to me to support my perspective: In languages that have infinitives, they generally have most of the following properties: * In most uses, infinitives are non-finite verbs. * They function as other lexical categories — usually nouns — within the clauses that contain them, for example by serving as the subject of another verb. **This statement is sadly riddled with confusion. In "reconstrui la mur es nos taxe", "reconstrui la mur" is undeniably the subject of the verb "es". But "reconstrui" on its own isn't the subject. If you think it is, then how do you explain "la mur"? The statement confuses infinitive verbs with infinitive clauses. If you don't believe in the existence of infinitive clauses, then what do you call "reconstrui la mur"? Simon ***I call it a noun phrase. reconstrui is a noun and the subject of "es". ***So for you, "reconstrui la mur" is a noun phrase containing a noun and another noun phrase. You have to extend the rules of noun phrase syntax to accommodate this, and to prevent it from being treated as a case of apposition. Simon * They do not represent any of the verb's arguments (as employer and employee do). * They are not inflected to agree with any subject * They cannot serve as the only verb of a declarative sentence. **Perfectly true, but this seems to strengthen my argument, not yours! It implies that they are subordinate verbs, which means they're verbs in subordinate clauses. Simon ***no, it means that they do not function as predicates, only as arguments. ***"Reconstrui la mur" would be the argument, not "reconstrui". I agree that these three words form an argument to "es", but what is the relationship between "reconstrui" and "la mur"? For you, "reconstrui" is the head of the noun phrase, and "la mur" is its object. Fair enough – it's a valid analysis – but it's unnecessarily complicated. Simon ****I can see one of the issues clearly here. In English, we have "to reconstruct" (infinitive), "reconstructing" (gerund), and "reconstruction" (noun). In LFN, these three are all "reconstrui" - no differences. We permit both "reconstrui la mur" e "reconstrui de la mur", the only difference being that the latter can take a determiner like "la", which changes the meaning slightly by making the reconstruction more specific and less general. ****I'm not disputing any of that. Simon * They do not have tense, aspect, moods, and/or voice, or they are limited in the range of tenses, aspects, moods, and/or voices that they can use. (In languages where infinitives do not have moods at all, they are usually treated as being their own non-finite mood.) * They are used with auxiliary verbs. The present participle in English is in the active voice and is used for: * forming the progressive aspect: Jim was sleeping. **A more pertinent example would be "Jim was brushing the dog". In English, you could argue that "was brushing" is a verb ("was" being an auxiliary verb that requires the "-ing" form of the real verb). You could argue this in LFN too, but we don't really acknowledge the existence of progressive verbs in LFN. Instead, we seem to prefer to say that "es dorminte" consists of a verb and its complement, which is fine by me. "Brosinte la can" is then best explained as an embedded clause with the role of complement. Simon ***I simply consider brushing an adjective serving as the complement. ***But an adjective with an object. That's quite odd. Simon ****not at all. do you think that "the carving man" and "the man carving wood" changes the adjectival natura of "carving" just because you have added an object? the second phrase es actually equivalent to "the wood-carving man", isn't it? ****In "the carving man", "carving" is an adjective. In "the man carving wood", it's a verb, because it has an object. The verb is in a clause that modifies "man", as if it was "the man who is carving wood". "The wood-carving man" has the same meaning, but that's irrelevant to the analysis of the syntax. (I know you disagree.) "Wood-carving" is a compound adjective. Simon * modifying a noun as an adjective: Let sleeping dogs lie. **In "the train now approaching platform 5 is the 9:30 for London King's Cross", "now approaching platform 5" is an embedded clause with the role of modifier within the NP "the train now approaching platform 5". Simon ***again, I see "approaching" as an adjective modifying "train". this is the reason I considered not permitting infinitives and predicates to take objects, but treating them strictly as nouns. ***That would have permitted your explanation of "approaching" as an adjective, but would have made the language cumbersome to use. There's a strong desire to use these words as verbs because... that's what they are! Simon ****it wouldn't have been cumbersome: you would simply use a preposition - something like "approaching to the platform" (the man carving at the wood, etc.) ****That would be fine. But when we discussed this last, I got the impression that you wanted to say "which is approaching the platform", "who is carving the wood", "our task is that we rebuild the wall", etc, which would be cumbersome. Simon *****that would be one more way to say it. but why say it is cumbersome? just because we are used to the succinctness of english? is that just a reflection of our culture, in which we seem to be unable to take our time to express something clearly? The past participle may be used in both active and passive voices: * forming the perfect aspect: The chicken has eaten. (not in LFN) * forming the passive voice: The chicken was eaten. * modifying a noun, with active sense: our fallen comrades (not in LFN) * modifying a noun, with passive sense: the attached files **And I agree that this is an adjective in LFN. Simon ***hallelujah! * modifying a verb or sentence, with passive sense: Seen from this perspective, the problem presents no easy solution. In summary, both our explanations boil down to the same thing, but mine seems (to me) to be more cleanly articulated – it doesn't blur important distinctions that ought to be drawn. Simon *of course I think mine is simpler and clearer! :-) *Mais oui. We'll have to agree to differ, because you're never going to shift me from my current view. In the LFN grammar, perhaps we should find a less technical way of explaining the point in question, referring to neither noun clauses nor noun phrases. The grammar is supposed to be easy for people to skim through, rather than a dust-gatheringly obscure treatise. Simon **now there's two things we can agree on! First, we needn't continue these discussions unless we feel masochistic. The problem boils down to the fact that I have little respect for "experts" from Chomsky on. They seem to me to be little more than people who had to come up with something for their dissertations, tenure, and promotions in academia. sort of like all those ridiculous analyses and re-analyses of literature no one reads anymore anyway. But more importantly, I agree that we need to keep technical details out of our grammar. now, for that cup of coffee... **There are experts and experts. Chomsky's theories of deep structure strike me as complete gibberish, for example. But sometimes experts do actually make some progress in their field. I don't dismiss all science as nonsense simply because people are paid to do it. Simon ***ah, see: I like Chomsky. not that I agree with everything he had to say - just his early work! I am also a fan of Lamb's stratificational linguistics. I especially like linguistics pre-Chomsky. I am old, yes. Out of curiosity, I've just looked to see what the very conservative traditionalist grammar "Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko" says about infinitives (which happen to end in -i in Esperanto): * La I-formo de verbo montras tute ĝenerale la ideon de farado de ago (aŭ estado en stato). ** The I-form of a verb indicates, in an entirely general way, the idea of performing an action (or being in a state). * I-verbo partoprenas en frazo en tiaj roloj, kiujn normale havas O-vorta frazparto: subjekto, objekto, k.t.p. ** An I-verb participates in a sentence in those roles that a noun phrase normally has: subject, object, etc. * Iafoje I-verbo eĉ povas havi rolvorteton antaŭ si. ** Sometimes an I-verb can even be preceded by a preposition. * I-verbo povas havi objekton, komplementojn k.t.p., same kiel ĉefverbo. Tial I-verbo tamen estas verbo. ** An I-verb can have an object, complements, etc, the same as a main verb. Therefore, nonetheless, an infinitive is a verb. * I-verbo kaj ĝiaj objekto, komplementoj k.t.p. rolas kune kiel unu frazparto, kiun oni povus nomi I-verba frazparto. ** An I-verb and its object, complements, etc operate together as a single part of a sentence, which could be termed an I-verb part of a sentence. * This doesn't quite go as far as to say that infinitives involve embedded clauses, but then again it talks about "parts of a sentence" rather than either phrases or clauses explicitly – it's deliberately keeping unnecessarily technical matters out of the picture, and yet it still treats the infinitive as a verb. Simon Of course I can't let you have the last word - especially not in esperanto. so here's a couple of pieces from wikipedia: *In languages without an infinitive, the infinitive is translated either as a that-clause or as a verbal noun. For example, in Literary Arabic the sentence "I want to write a book" is translated as either urīdu an aktuba kitāban (lit. "I want that I should write a book", with a verb in the subjunctive mood) or urīdu kitābata kitābin (lit. "I want the writing of a book", with the masdar or verbal noun) **Fine, but that's irrelevant because Arabic doesn't have a true infinitive. Simon *A verbal noun is a noun formed directly as an inflexion of a verb or a verb stem, sharing at least in part its constructions. This term is applied especially to gerunds, and sometimes also to infinitives and supines (full infinitive or to infinitive). **Note the "sometimes"! Simon *Some claim that true nouns sharing the stem of their respective verbs are also verbal nouns (such as survival from survive). However, in English grammar it is a little accepted view, on the grounds that it would make nearly all nouns verbal nouns; but in some other languages, such as Arabic, that view is the only possible one, as there is no gerund or infinitive form of a verb (the Arabic masdar is a verbal noun: naql, for example, can be translated as "transporting" or "to transport", but its literal meaning is "transportation".) **The claim that this would make nearly all nouns verbal nouns is quite bizarre. What about all the nouns for physical objects? But again, this is irrelevant. Simon ***I quite agree - but I didn't want to edit too much. you get the writer's point, though: an aweful lot of nouns have verbal origins. As I've mentioned before, I don't like the word "infinitive" and have always used "verbal noun" instead (and "verbal adjective" rather than "participle"). creoles generally avoid infinitives and participles like the plague, and that's what I had hoped for with lfn. Jorj *Not all that we desire do we achieve. "Verbal adjective" is fine. "Verbal noun" suggests you can put a determiner in front of it. Ultimately, your model works fine – it just doesn't match mine and strikes me as less elegant. But I'm undoubtedly biased by my existing experience. Simon